This is an easy theme to foll......Where am I?

Over the course of the past few weeks I've been listening to parts of Mahler's 5th symphony. At this point I've only heard the first three movements. The reason why I have not listened to the entire piece yet is because I am trying to follow the music with a symphonic score. The only problem is, that it is quite difficult to follow. At some times I felt confident in where I was, and then I would lose my place and be unable to pick it back up. I have to say that I have had experience with following a symphonic score, but it is still a difficult task to keep up with the music when looking at a score. So really, what I'm looking at is why do I have trouble with this particular piece?

Realistically, I've only looked at two symphonic scores-meaning the entire work. The first was Mozart's Jupiter symphony in 11th grade. I remember quite vividly how I reacted when I first had it in my hands. I opened the book and saw 15+ staves and was utterly overwhelmed that the entire first page was only 10 measures long. Next up was listening to the symphony and following it, needless to say I lost my place within the first page turn-I ended up getting a headache as I frantically looked at the music not know what to look at and how to decipher what I was looking at and what I was hearing. Though class after class my ability to follow the music improved Soon there were only a few parts in which I had struggles with-but I could easily find myself after those particular sections. The reason behind this was because of repeated exposure, listening to who has the melody and look at that instrument on the score and see if what is playing is what is written, and eventually the themes started to stick in my head and I could recognize them.

The second symphonic score was the aforementioned Mahler symphony. By this time, I had looking at the Jupiter symphony for about two years and I felt pretty confident in being able to follow symphonic scores. However I wasn't even 2 minutes into the first movement when I lost my place. I was trying my best- to focus on the melody and the instrument that has the melody and try to follow it. Though sometimes the melody was played by all the instruments and then switch off between different instruments, making it confusing at some times. This was essentially the main way in which I followed the score. Thus I tried a different tactic, I tried keeping the beat and counting measures. This worked for a while, except sometimes the conductor would have tempo changes that weren't written in my score which threw me off. I even tried focusing on dynamics-but since there were so many changes it was impossible to keep on track. It took a whole 30 minutes to listen to the first movement-15m long, from start to finish with being able to follow 80% of the material.

Through listening and following this symphony on score I can tell that my skills have improved. I had to adapt to how this symphony was arranged-not all symphonies are the same so the way that the score is laid out isn't the same as well. In the Jupiter Symphony score Each page was a set of measures-in the Mahler symphony sometimes there would be markings that indicated that the measures didn't continue onto the next page but below that set of staves. So sometimes there would be a page with all the instruments-and the next page would have two sections of just string instruments, then it would revert back to the all of the instruments on the next page. So if you were following the trumpet, the staff for the trumpet would be gone and you would only see the string instruments. (Of course the trumpet wouldn't be playing at that part-but it is offsetting because now the cello is now taking the spot on the page where the trumpet was). However, as confusing as it was it has been a constant learning experience-and this is the first time I have heard the symphony so I am not familiar with the melody an themes-making it harder to follow. I probably should have listened to the entire piece first then look at a score- so I would at least be familiar with the material. I still have the 4th movement to look at and listen to, so I am looking forward to see how well I do. It is a struggle, but it pushes me to continue to listen and memorize the themes and seeing which instruments repeat them to find where it is on the score and continue following it.

Industrial Revolutionizing to Music!

One major I considered pursuing before I entered college was a degree in Music History. I discovered that I had an extreme fascination with the effect society had upon music and the effect music had on society. In fact, I had such a high level of fascination that both of my research papers in high school pertained to the relationship between society and music. Although Music History is not a major I'm pursuing, I still have a passion for it and nerd out whenever the opportunity arises. One recent case was when I realized that one of the songs that the choir I'm involved in, University Singers, is singing is called Verleih uns Frieden which was composed by Mendelssohn but the text was written by Martin Luther. What made me nerd out about this song is that in my music history class I had just learned about Martin Luther and how he created the Lutheran Church and its services. By knowing that tidbit of information, I now know that I am singing a Lutheran hymn with music from a Romantic composer. To think that a hymn composed way in the 16th century was used to be made a famous choral work in the 19th century! Even more, that text was created merely because Martin Luther did not agree with the Catholic Church's methods of worship and traditions. If there was no reformation movement, I would not be singing this beautiful piece of literature.

 Society has a huge impact on the world of music, it is just that we hardly notice the difference. The importance of this is that events have radically changed music over the course of our time on the Earth. Here is some proof as to why I think that it is important to know the historical background of music/instruments.

One thing that most music majors are required to do is learn to play the piano. Most often we focus on playing the piano that we often don't think about how the piano works as an instrument. We usually know that it is considered a percussion instrument because when we pluck keys hammers hit a string and the vibrations of those strings produces sounds. Well before the 19th century, the piano as an instrument was quite lacking! Pianos could only afford to have 40-50ish keys total, compared to our standard of 88 keys today! The reason for this was that to produce a higher sound strings had to be tightened. Well originally the piano soundboard/inside frame was made out of wood. Well back then strings could only get so tight before they actually warped the soundboard/inside frame. When it is warped the entire instrument's sound is influenced and almost becomes useless! Now how did we achieve our 88 keys today? Two word: Industrial Revolution. During the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution revved up creation around the world. One of the biggest innovations of the century was the creation of cast iron steel. Well that steel could be used as a frame for pianos! Since steel was stronger and more resilient than wood it could take greater strain from tightened strings without getting warped. Thus the creation of cast iron steel, which we most often associate with machinery and mechanical inventions actually helped further the piano as an instrument! Now what is the effect of that? Well with 30+ more keys available- I bet composers were livid with an even greater range to compose piano repertoire! Eventually it does lead to a significant range increase in compositions for piano works compared to the century before. 

Historical context can either bring light and understanding to a piece of music, or it can bring depth and understanding to something you never thought about. Personally, when I learned about how the industrial revolution furthered the piano I was ecstatic. Never had I known that the range of the piano was less than 88 keys and that the only limitation was the materials that created it. I mean seriously- think about pop music, or well known classical movements that include piano parts that are in very high registers. All of that is made possible by a movement with coal, machines, and assembly lines. New inventions and innovations were the prime focus at the time. The piano was years old by then, but the creation of that 1 thing that steel frame changed music for piano from that point onward. If a stronger frame was never made- how much of our piano music would not exist/be possible to play? It definitely blows my mind-history is pretty awesome when it doesn't haven anything to do with music but affects it in a revolutionary way. 'Tis why it is important to know historical settings- really adds to your experience.

The Only Resort

For the most part, composers and artists institute lyrics in their songs in order to convey a message of some kind. This has been an apparent truth from the dawn of the Gregorian chant, where people sung and recited songs,  to the twilight of today's music industry. One of the more notable examples of using lyrics to convey messages in today's society is Green Day. Their release of American Idiot was practically an entire album criticizing American society and the American Government; it even went as far as being made into a musical. Although American Idiot is an excellent example, I am primarily going to blog about the Eagles' song:  The Last Resort from their Hotel California album.

Not a well known song compared to the title track, The Last Resort criticizes American society from its very origins and the corruption that has spread over time. Involved in this criticism is also the Christian faith and how it was used as an excuse for many of the actions taken. At first glance it definitely is interesting since the words "The Last Resort" do not appear in any of the text. From my perspective I believe that the artist is indicating that there could have been a better way- that this was a last resort. My reason for believing this is taken from the text of the song itself.

The first indication of conflict/ distress is found in the second verse where it talks about the red man. This is another term for Indians, to which later the lyrics say" "We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and the name of God." This is basically referring to what is called the Manifest Destiny. Taught differently in schools, the Manifest Destiny was quite the ruthless doctrine. To sum it up, it stated that White men had the God given right to go west and seize the lands for themselves; that all of the land was promised to them by God. In God's name they used it as an excuse to validate their reasons for having skirmishes with the Indians and seizing their land. In reality, they fabricated their own belief that was apart from the Christian faith, which was practically taking God's name in vain. They were greedy and wanted to expand and make more money. An accurate representation of this greediness is shown in AMC's Hell on Wheels. Although it is not a 100% accurate representation historically, it does show many cultural truths during that time period as they were expanding west. Even further mention of using God's name as excuses and lies for personal gain appears in the text of the song. Overall, the song really questions society's motives. Are they fabrications of truth? Are they selfish? Where is the happiness that once did exist? All of these messages that are being conveyed in text are even further addressed and emphasized in the musical decisions made.

Rhythmically, the melodic line is quite strophic. If not strophic, it is very repetitive and easy to follow. In fact, it's so simple that one could easily learn it. The simplicity of this, I believe, really compliments the message they are trying to convey. It is in a very storytelling-like manner. This allows for the listener to hear the text with ease, which allows one to remember and piece together the message as a whole. However, though the message can be conveyed with ease, it is very odd, to me, that the song itself is in a major key. The Eagles are conveyed a dark truth about our nation's history. Usually it would be easier to convey darker subjects with a minor tonality. Though, in opposition to that thought the Eagles are probably using that simple rhythmic and major/happy sound melody to represent society's thoughts about the subject. The simple rhythm and happy melodic line can indicate a feeling of aloofness and have a carefree attitude. In which they are scorning society and how lightly they take of serious matters, especially dark ones. When all else fails we tend to ignore the problem, then it becomes only resort.

Now there are certain areas in this song that do compliment the serious implications of the message. For example, after the 5th verse, during the instrumental section, there is a part where the piano has arpeggiation in a high register. The tonal qualities of these chords are major, however they have a sad timbre that is usually expressed in slower, sad songs. Also, right before that section, there is small window of time in which the V chord is left hanging and doesn't resolve right away. This leaves the listener with a feeling of unrest-and when it finally is resolved  the arpeggiation comes in. The combination of these two musical elements creates a picture in which there is a problem, and it is prolonged, but it does reach a resolve-except it's a IAC- an imperfect "sad" end that progresses into even more problems. As for the chord progression for the verses- it's a pretty simplistic I-IV-V-I progression that is easy to follow and understand. 

Overall, numerous factors in the musical decisions really emphasize the dark message behind the creation of our society and how we still live in the same manner today as we did back then. 

Testimonial Song

For as long as I can remember, I've always associated the term "worship" as praising the Lord with songs. However, quite recently I realized that you can worship the Lord without singing any songs or playing any music. One example of this in the Bible is Genesis 22:5 : "He (Abraham) said to his servants, 'Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.' " The context around this verse is that Abraham is about to go to the place where God told him to sacrifice his son Isaac. In this particular setting worship is not singing hymns or songs for the Lord, instead worship was the act of sacrifice for the Lord. Once I realized that you can worship the Lord without actually performing songs, it made me think about the importance of songs in the church. It is necessary? Is it an important aspect of the service? Could we do without it and still worship the Lord normally? At first I was very skeptical and didn't really know how to answer those questions, but through various scriptures I became more and more convinced that worship with songs is a very important form of worship that should be used for glorifying the Lord.

This is how I came to that belief:

One of the most common books that are associated with music in the Bible is Psalm. The entire book itself is a list of songs and praises written for the Lord. Some of the psalms even give a reason for singing. Psalm 47 states: "Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy. For the Lord Most High is awesome, the great King over all the earth." ; Psalm 81 says: "Sing for joy to God our strength; shout aloud to the God of Jacob!" ; Psalm 89: "I will sing of the Lord's great love forever; with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations." ; Psalm 13: "I will sing the Lord's praise, for he has been good to me." From these few examples we have the reasons: God is awesome, for joy to God, sing about the love and faithfulness of God, and sing because of what He has done. From this it is evident that the main reason for these songs is to sing of the thing God has done for them in their lives. Now I am not sure if you see any parallels so I will spell it out for you. The majority of these songs were to tell others about the wonders God has done in their lives. In a nutshell these songs are all testimonies, yet they are in the forms of songs! It is written in Colossians 3: 16, "Let the message of Christ dwell among you as you richly teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts." It's pretty self explanatory in that verse that we can sing praises to the Lord and glorify Him by teaching each other about the message of Christ that dwells in us through music. 

I believe that music as a form of worship in our faith is a necessity. It blows my mind to think that by singing these hymns and these songs I not only realize the testament shared by the composer but I can also use them to bring praise to the Lord and share His good deeds. I can spread the gospel through song, I can share my testimony through song, and I can praise and glorify His name through song. If we as Christians have always been wrong about music and worship, then how could I do all those things which we as Christians are called to do? We are able to worship the Lord with music and keep His commands and that is why I believe the role of music in worship is vital for our faith.

Leaning on the Empire State Building

It's always in the most mundane places that we tend to have the greatest experiences. Oddly enough, we can't remember the answers for our finals but we can remember the silliest things in years past. One of the earliest things I can remember quite vividly is taking pictures when I was 4-5 years old with my brother and sister. We each had our own tote bag and it had our pictures on it. We used those tote bags as our backpacks when we went to a care center called Mother's Day Out. This was a year before kindergarten! But could I remember all the things my Old Testament teacher lectured over for the Final today? Definitely not!

One of my favorite mundane experiences with music, isn't exactly in the most mundane place but rather in a place quite famous: The Empire State Building. My choir in 10th grade had the opportunity to go to New York for a competition called the Festival of Gold. Whilst we were in New York we planned to go inside and up the Empire State Building- I mean who wouldn't want to go up a famous monument? I do have to say, it was one of my favorite experiences during the trip.

Now, before I go into what I did, I need to explain the building a bit. You don't go to the very top of the Empire State Building, but rather there is a set floor that you can go to-and if you pay more you can go even higher to a certain floor. Of course, as it is a skyscraper the build is quite tall! So really, how to get up to the designated floor you need to take an elevator, walk around a hallway, take another elevator  then go through another hallway and climb a flight of stairs, then another elevator and so forth until you reach the floor. Now when you get a whole bunch of Choir Guys and Gals in a spot there is bound to be singing! So what did we do? Well as we were climbing up the stairs we started singing the arrangement of Lean on Me that we learned for Pop Show earlier than year. As we climbed the various floors we sang at the top of our lungs our parts! Of course, we weren't the only ones there! Other people joined in as well! All up the flight of stairs we sang and sang. I mean, it's not everyday that you can sing in the Empire State Building!

It's very funny, I always struggle to remember our concert rep that we had that year for that competition, but a memory like that is something that is quick to surface. It makes me wonder, why can I remember this musical experience vividly when I can't remember the actual performance-which was the entire purpose of the trip. Both were enjoyable and both were fun. We always tend to remember the mundane, it just sticks out like a sore thumb. The unnatural, or rather the imperfect. How simple it is to remember a mistake than a success? It kind of serves as a reminder. A reminder of what is important. We learn from our failures, we remember the joy we had in a random mundane event. If we only remember what we need to know, and our success- what is there to learn? Never underestimate the mundane- I mean you remember stuff for a reason you just have to figure out for yourself! So..."Lean on" those memories. They're useful :).

The Forgotten Ornament

As a vocal principal music major, one of the main things that I have put emphasis on is sound. Trying to achieve the correct quality of vowels in order to have resonance in my voice. For the most part the focus is on how you sound.

When we listen to a piece of music we focus on what we hear. The Rhythms, Melodies, Harmonies, Lyrics, etc. We listen to all these different aspects. Now, let me mention something a bit radical-try listening to a song for nothing. Yes, nothing. Listen to a song whilst honing in only on the silence in it. Or think of a song you know very where and think of spots where silence occurs.............It doesn't seem to be as easy to do is it? It's very common with instrumental music, but a lot of vocal music, or contemporary music doesn't really emphasize silence. It's less emphasized now than it used to be; instead contrasting dynamics are more common. It ironic, because it seems as though silence has really become silent.

The reason I point this is, is silence is just as important and loud as sound. A common mistake that I made in Aural Skills in the 2nd semester of my freshman year is that I glossed over and skipped rests when we were sight reading melodic phrases. Disappointment struck my teacher's face when that happened. Her response was: "We are in College, we are Musicians and we must follow and count rests." Rests, a point of silence, hold just as much importance as regular notes. What I'm really trying to get across is that silence isn't something that is there when no sound is present but ornaments the music.

Here are a few examples:
Modest Mussorgky's Night on Bald Mountain



Benjamin Britten's Rosa Mystica



In the Mussorgsky piece you can easily hear the use of silence within the first thirty seconds. The quick call for silence followed by an accent beat then back to silence. It's abruptness makes a statement with the dynamics slowly creeping in as it becomes louder and louder. The Britten piece is different. The silence I'll point out is around the 2 minute mark where for the majority of the piece up until this point the basses and tenors are singing an A throughout the piece while the sopranos and altos sing the melody. After transitioning into a different section and then all parts are unison. It becomes quiet for a brief second (2 minute mark). Next are several phrases which are set broken apart through a pause. This itself is an interesting technique. As after this section, the tenors and basses resume the A and the altos and sopranos go back to the melody. This creates a nice contrasting section compared to the rest of the work. The text is easier to hear, crisper, and it's as though the message of the song is contained in those fragments.

Sometimes we become too concerned with the sounds of music that we disregard the importance of silence as well since no sound waves are being amplified in your ear, transmitted into electrical signals, and sent to your brain. Though the beauty of it is that it is an ornamentation of sound itself, without the sound. If you don't believe me...well if you've ever played Slender or seen someone play it. The game starts out with barely any sound/no sound, and when you see Slender...BAM!!! A loud chord is played and it's quite startling! I mean, have you ever seen a horror movie with a hefty movie score? Silence just isn't a break or a rest to breathe, but it adds life into the music.

"Do-Do the Riviera!"

One thing that my choir director told me in High school was that through your life as a musician you will really only have 2-3 great performances. When I first heard this in 10th grade, I didn't quite understand what she meant by that. My thought process at the time was-aren't we always putting on great performances? If so, then I have way more than 2-3. Though in the recent days of Freshman year of college I've slowly come to realize what she meant.

Coming into college, I thought I had a great voice. I thought I was extremely talented and sang very well. Quite honestly, I thought all I was doing was right. Though I quickly learned that I was completely wrong. I didn't do a lot of solo voice, but through voice lessons and hearing people in performance lab it made me realize the mistakes that I was making. I had absolutely no clue what I was doing! I thought singing was just learning a song, notes on a page and just singing the notes; though it is so much more than that. I was ignorant to the many factors that make up a performance. How singing isn't something simple, but it is a complicated process that is built up on numerous factors. I didn't know how to breathe, I didn't know about vowel shapes, tongue position, or even how to pronounce words in a different language. I even admit now, as Freshman year closes there is still so much that I don't know/haven't perfected yet! With all of this in mind, it really makes me think: Did I really have a "great" performance, or have all my performances been just "good."

It's definitely something that claws my brain. Examining all my past performances to see if there was something that is relatively close to a "great" performance. However, that makes me ponder what a "great" performance is. Is it a performance where everything is perfect, goes right, and you follow all of the rules? Or is it something else? Maybe it's not dependent on you to decide, but someone else determines the verdict. It really is something that bothers me, like an irking itch beneath my skin.

So many factors can go into this that it seems impossible to figure out the answer to this question. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. Though when I really try and replay my performances back in my head-there is one that sticks out from the rest. It's the one performance that I remember the most from.

Here it is:


This was the first musical I was a part of at my school in 10th grade. If you get nominated for the Tommy Tune award for Best Musical you get to perform a number in the Hobby Center in Downtown Houston, where it is broadcasted later on TV. After watching the video, it's apparent that our singing isn't the greatest-I mean that last chord is pretty amazing right? Our dancing isn't all that-heck we were surprised that we even given a nomination for this award since we thought the musical wasn't all that great when we put it on. So why does this one performance stick out? Well It's not because it was broadcasted on the TV, or the largest stage I've performed on, or the largest audience I've performed for. Though I distinctly remember the feeling I had during the performance. On that stage, I wasn't Greggory Miller. I was Marcel, my character. Not only that, It felt as though the stage didn't even exist. Every ounce of nervousness was purged from my body, I didn't even think- I just sang and dance nothing more. That experience, however, felt so genuine and so unique to everything that I have done thus far.

In a performance viewpoint, I would say it's mediocre. It's obvious that there are so many things that we could have improved on. Though I believe that this was a "great" performance for me. It was the first time I truly felt that I was performing as a musician and not as a performer. And I believe that is the perfect criteria for what makes a "great" performance.

Needless to say, I don't think there is one specific set of criterion that makes up a "great" performance. It can either be what you believe, or maybe you rely on someone else's opinion to make it one. Though I am glad and thankful that my choir director shared this with me, because it's a very humbling fact. There are just going to be performances that are terrible or mediocre, but it's comforting that those are just stepping block into something even great. Each mistake, is a lesson learned which assists the course of what is next.

If you have any "great" performances you would like to share, or want to share what some of your criteria that makes up one feel free to share.

The Unique Essence of Languages

You know, it's very interesting. We hear so many different songs on the radio every single day. Countless new albums, songs, bands, genres, and styles are appearing out of nowhere. However, if you actually stop to think about all that you're listening to- there lies a common thread: English.

Some of us claim that we know all there is about music, or we are specialists in all the kinks of a genre of music though we always forget that English is not the only language in the world. We pride ourselves in knowing this language, which isn't exactly universal but very close to it. Though in reality, we use it as a box. A box that has parameters in which we become ignorant of all the music in different languages.

I wanted to try something new this past winter. For Christmas, my parents asked me what I wanted as a gift. I said that I wanted music. To my parents, however, music isn't specific enough. Long story short, after perusing around the internet I saw that Kari Jobe had a new album, Where I find you, and not only that she also had a version recorded in Spanish, Donde Te Encuentro. I don't know what really came over me, but I really wanted to own this album and listen to it-rather than the English recording. Quite frankly, after listening to it I only understood about half of the words but I felt that it conveyed a unique essence that the English version didn't. 

Here are the two versions of one of her songs off the album.

When you translate words into another language-there is bound to be some change in the literal translation-take the Bible for example. There are quite the amount of translations! Though if you listen to these different translations-the Spanish, albeit not the original recorded version, has a fluidity in the diction that the English doesn't have. Why? Well from what I've learned from Vocal Diction- each language has their own vowels and consonants. Spanish is very similar to Italian in many aspects, more so than English. In the English language we use many schwas and tend to have darker vowels. Not to mention homophones and that several words can have different pronunciations-don't you always fret when the word "Bow" comes up when you're singing? Also, examine the everyday conversation between English and Spanish. I mean when I first heard people speaking Spanish my first thoughts were: "Was that a sentence, or a paragraph?" The majority of the words in Spanish end in a vowel, whereas English contains many hard consonants at the end of the words- which interrupts/partially interrupts the air flow depending on the consonant. So really, this "fluidity" that I feel/hear is really the more constant and consistent air flow Spanish words produce when compared to English.

It really makes you wonder, in this case, does translating a song from English to Spanish add fluidity, if so then does translating a song from Spanish to English detract fluidity? That is of course, a whole investigation in itself, but what are your thoughts about this?

Magic is an Excuse to make an Effort

One of my favorite poems is Mending Wall by Robert Frost. It goes like this: 

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That sens the frozen-ground-swell under it,

And spills the upper boulders in the sun, 

And makes gaps even two can pass abreast. 

The work of hunters is another thing: 

I have come after them and made repair 

Where they have left not one stone on a stone, 

But they would have the rabbit out of hiding, 

To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean, 

No one has seen them made or heard them made, 

But at spring mending-time we find them there. 

I let my neighbor know beyond the hill; 

And on a day we meet to walk the line 

And set the wall between us once again. 

We keep the wall between us as we go. 

To each the boulders that have fallen to each. 

And some are loaves and some so nearly balls 

We have to use a spell to make them balance: 

'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!' 

We wear our fingers rough with handling them. 

Oh, just another kind of out-door game, 

One on a side. It comes to little more:

There where it is we do not need the wall:

He is all pine and I am apple orchard.

My apple trees will never get across 

And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him. 

He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'. 

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder 

If I could put a notion in his head: 

'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it 

Where there are cows? 

But here there are no cows. 

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know 

What I was walling in or walling out, 

And to whom I was like to give offence. 

Something there is that doesn't love a wall, 

That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him, 

But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather 

He said it for himself. I see him there 

Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top 

In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. 

He moves in darkness as it seems to me~ 

Not of woods only and the shade of trees. 

He will not go behind his father's saying, 

And he likes having thought of it so well 

He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

The reason why this poem is one of my favorites is that it is so pervasive in my musical experiences. The wall in the poem represents the fear of change. When it stands we are content and stay safe from what the poem represents through the hyperbole of the Hunters, (what we want to avoid), and the Rabbits in hiding, (us). However it only leads to one style of living- one that is in the dark as depicted by the writer's neighbor toward the end of the poem.

 My favorite line is: "We have to use a spell to make them balance: 'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'" It displays such desperation to use a means that doesn't even exist, (magic), to the point where you are content with the fact of seeing it stabilized just for a second. Then to completely forget about it and walk away. Over the course of Freshmen Year I've slowly learned what it means to become a musician and this line says it all. Through theory and learning music for juries, music isn't something that just happens. I've lived the majority of my life with the thought that everything will magically align themselves. Though it doesn't take a fake sense of reality to make a performance, it takes struggle and the willingness to change. If you take the writer and his neighbor, they did not put effort to make something new but they chose to repair what will always be broken. 

As musicians we need to try hard everyday to make an effort to just be able to do what we can do; even more if you want to improve. If we are so obsessed with what we don't want to do or obsessed with the fact of staying the same we are preventing our own growth within ourselves. It's very easy to become complacent when it comes to music. I've slowly learned that to be and become a better musician you don't stay in a place of contempt and make yourself stagnant, but rather go forth with the unknown and challenge yourself and improve. Why? Well for me it's to become competent leader and musician. What is your drive?